Category: Courts

Trump Explains Law To Judges — Donald Trump just finished (Feb. 8) a powerful and inspiring speech to the National Sheriffs’ Association. He praised law enforcement and said those involved had a friend in the White House. He warned they most hold themselves to high standards, remove the bad actors among them and be good role models.

He said youth murders were a national tragedy and that every child — even those in Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore — had a right to play outside in peace and attend school without fear, or pressure to join a gang.

He said he wasn’t joking about building the wall on the Mexican border and that it was being designed as he spoke.

Probably most significantly he took on the activist judges and pundits snarling his ban on those seeking entry from seven terrorist-controlled nations. It was about time. Thank God he has the spine. He read the law INA 212 (f) verbatim:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

He cracked a cracked joke about the pronoun “he” being politically incorrect and noted that what was being discussed by the pundit/legal class had nothing to do with the perfectly clear statement that he read.

He said he had planned to give a month’s, and then a week’s, notice regarding his ban but was dissuaded by his security advisors as it would have allowed terrorists planning entry to move up their timetable.

As the President implied, it is political-based decisions by judges that are causing the courts to come into disrespect, not anything he is saying.

In a side note, Chester County’s wonderful Sheriff Bunny Welsh was seen worldwide sitting next to the President, yesterday, when he met with leaders of theNational Sheriffs’ Association at the White House.

Three seats on the Supreme Court are up for election and it is extremely critical for the Republican Party to maintain control.

I highlighted on Oct. 7 how important this race is and now I will show you why.

Union contributions to the three Democratic candidates ($2.1 million of their $5.9 million total) equal about $500,000 more than all contributions to Republican candidates.

It is important to note: The “Committee for a Better Tomorrow” – which is the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association’s political action committee contributed $375,000 to the Democratic candidates in comparison to the $10,000 they gave to the Republican candidates.**

I have been reporting over the last two years that the public sector unions are choking off any meaningful reforms in Harrisburg.

It is imperative for everyone to understand that even if we have a Republican majority in the Senate, House, and a Republican governor, any meaningful reforms we pass over the next 20 years could be challenged and overturned.

Do not expect pension reform or property tax reform to be passed if the Supreme Court has a Democratic majority because someone could file a legal action and challenge the reforms.

A similar situation recently happened in Illinois – the Governor of Illinois signed pension reform legislation in 2013 which was overturned this year by the Illinois Supreme Court.

The union influence in Harrisburg is staggering and it is the number one reason why we cannot get financial reforms passed.

I cannot reinforce enough how critical it is for you to get out and vote on Tuesday, Nov. 3.

While there are other important races on the ballot, this is the most important race we will see in our lifetime.

Judges on the Supreme Court serve for 10 years and then they can run for retention – another 10 year term – which is a simple vote and judges rarely lose retention.

We must rally around our Republican candidates and get them over the finish line on Tuesday, November 3rd!

It’s easier to hit the party button than to research those on it. We are not judging party button pushers. It is wiser, after all, to vote for the group that might look after one’s interest when one knows the other side certainly won’t.

Unions are also giving money to Ms. Covey, a Commonwealth Court judge from Bucks County who spent years as a labor lawyer and served on the Labor Relations Board.

So that gives us a pretty clear indication that ticket splitting is the thing to do this Nov. 3. Those who care about keeping their homes will vote for endorsed Republicans George and Ms. Olson along with independent Panepinto.

Regarding the backgrounds of the Supreme Court candidates, all are judges. As noted Ms. Covey sits on Commonwealth Court, the state intermediate appellate court regarding decisions by government regulatory agencies; Wecht, Ms. Donohue, and Ms. Olson are on Pennsylvania Superior Court, the intermediate appellate court for criminal and civil cases; George is an Adams County Common Pleas Court judge, and Panepinto is a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judges.

Ms. Covey is the only candidate not recommended by the state Bar Association.

Ms. Olson and George have been endorsed by the Pennsylvania State Troopers Association.

So the Supreme Court, yesterday, June 25, found by a 6-3 vote that when Congress said that Obamacare subsidies could only be obtained via state exchanges they were just goofing. Forget the turmoil and compromises (and blatant dishonesty) when the law was passed– something that should be everybody’s memory, Congress put in that clause because they were goofing.

At least in the view of six Supreme Court judges — including “conservatives” John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.

Americans have to wake up to the reality that the nation’s political division is not between Democrats Republicans but between those who want power and wealth and those who want to live in peace with their neighbor.

Let’s not forget that corporate America was and remains a strong supporter of Obamacare.

The Delaware County (Pa) Republican Party, today, April 27, called the refusal by Democrat judicial candidates Lawrence DeMarco and Lawrence Abel to share their qualifications with the members of the non-partisan Delaware County Bar Association “insulting and disappointing.”

The Delaware County Bar Association has long asked its members to evaluate the qualifications of judicial candidates who are seeking to serve on the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas.

After reviewing their qualification, the members of the Bar Association are asked to rate candidates as “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” “Not Recommended,” or “No Opinion.” While the Republican candidates for judge, Anthony Scanlon, Margaret Amoroso, and Dominic Pileggi each submitted their qualifications, Democrats DeMarco and Abel refused to submit their qualifications and take part in the process.

“Voters should be concerned by the lack of experience and qualifications of Democrats Abel and DeMarco if they refuse to even submit their background for review and evaluation by the non-partisan Delaware County Bar Association,” said Andrew Reilly, chairman of the Delaware County Republican Party. “Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Demarco only joined the Bar Association a couple years ago and Abel’s application to join the bar was only submitted a few weeks ago.”

“Delaware County residents deserve and expect better from their judges than the partisan games that DeMarco and Abel are playing,” said Reilly. “It is hypocritical that they refuse to have their qualifications judged by their peers but they want to sit in judgment of others on the bench.”

Each election for Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, the Delaware County Bar Association’s Judicial Selection/Retention Committee asks the bipartisan members of the bar association to rate the qualifications of each judicial candidate. To ensure a non-partisan and fair process, the Judicial Selection Committee is led by two co-chairs, one attorney and bar association member who is a registered Republican and one who is a registered Democrat.

Michael Cottone has published an article in the Tennessee Law Review describing how literally no one now can keep the centuries-old principle ignorantia legis neminem excusati.e. ignorance of the law excuses no one.

He noted that it was a great thing in its day when laws were few and based on a commonly understood morality.

Today, however, with the advent of “regulatory crime”, which are laws written to enforce administrative schemes and called “public welfare offenses”, literally nobody can know what all the laws are.

He cited as an example a guy who got lost on a snowmobile during a blizzard and ended up on federal land where snowmobiling was illegal. Rather than be cut slack he was prosecuted. That sort of thing does not happen in a just society.

Traditionally one needed intent to become a criminal.

“Tellingly, no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given, but estimates from the last fifteen years range from 3,600 to approximately 4,500,” Cottone said.

Cottone notes that Congress, according to one study, enacts 60 new criminal statues a year and this does not include new regulations that carry a criminal penalty.

“Our criminal justice system fails to be “understandable” so as to comport with the internal morality of law—especially because of the highly technical nature of regulations,” he wrote.

Reforms are needed desperately.

Abuse of the legal process is by definition unjust and those entrusted to uphold it yet abuse it will face an inevitable backlash.

The book is a guide for judges in handling crimes of sexual violence and addresses the steps of sex offense cases. It also includes detailed information regarding preliminary arraignments and hearings, standards of proof and the setting of bail and bail conditions to ensure the safety of victims and witnesses.

The guidelines are reasonable and the Commonwealth can take pride in its rape laws.

There are some issues, though, namely in Chapter 1 “The Dynamics of Sexual Violence Crimes.” For instance Section 5 “False Reporting” has the subhead “Reality: Statistically, very few people lie about being raped”. Why would that pointless yet prejudicial phrase be in a benchbook for judges? How about “Reality: Statistically, very few people lie about being robbed”? Or “Reality: Statistically, very few people lie about being beaten to where they can’t walk for a month”?

We suspect that the reality is that “statistically” there are more people who lie about being raped than being victims of other crimes. There are female sociopaths out there as well as male ones, after all, and we don’t want to throw out the presumption of innocence.

The subhead for Section 6 is Realty: “The overwhelming majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated against women.” The section then goes on to say “It is difficult to determine the number of male victims of sexual violence for a variety of reasons.” So, how do you know what the reality is Judge Panella? The words in the subhead say “perpetrated against” not “reported by”. That particular bit is sloppy writing and sloppy thinking. And, again, what is the point of even mentioning it?

Otherwise — and we confess that we did not read all 742 pdf pages — it seems a useful and valuable tool.

The Travis County DA also holds the chief responsibility for enforcing the government and election code statewide.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry felt that a person who scoffs at the law and abuses law enforcement officers was not fit to hold the position. He said he would veto the $7.5 million state funding for the PIU unless Ms. Lehmberg resigned.

Perry, today, Aug. 16, issued a statement saying that he “wholeheartedly and unequivocally” stands behind his veto calling the indictment as “nothing more than an abuse of power.

” I cannot, and will not, allow that to happen,” he said. “I intend to fight against those who would erode our state’s constitution and laws purely for political purposes, and I intend to win. I will explore every legal avenue to expedite this matter and bring it to a swift conclusion. I am confident we will ultimately prevail, that this farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and that those responsible will be held to account.”

Thank you, Gov. Perry. We wish you were a Pennsylvanian.

Here is the video of District Attorney Lehmberg showing her respect for the law.

Circuit Court Judge Wade McCree in Action

Wayne County, Mich. Circuit Court Judge Wade McCree had a divorce case before him. He found the wife attractive, sent her provocative text messages from the bench and eventually had sexual relations with her resulting in a child which was aborted.

McCree, needless to say, came down pretty hard on the husband in his ruling.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against King cited the doctrine of judicial immunity for decisions judges make on the bench that stems from the Bradley v Fisher decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1871.

King’s lawyer, Joel Sklar, is appealing to the Supreme Court.

We hope he wins. It should be obvious that once a person who happens to be a judge reveals himself to be corrupt the protection should end and justice prevail.

Oprahization Of the Delaware County D.A. — The prosecutors in the Delaware County (Pa) District Attorney’s office seem to be watching Oprah Winfrey when they should be reading Jefferson and Blackstone.

Delaware County Daily Times columnist Gil Spencer had articles, here and here, regarding a father who was brought to trial on various child sex charges solely on the word of a disturbed young neighbor who had a known grudge.

The prosecution had no corroborating evidence and Sherlock Holmes was not needed to see inconsistencies in the girl’s story i.e porn was not found in the house. Nor did there seem to be any consideration — or maybe even investigation — into the history of the accused and accuser, or the accuser’ background.

Fortunately, the jurors had a better understanding of truth and justice than the trained lawyers. The man was acquitted albeit at a cost of $10,000 in legal fees.